FINALLY SOMEONE SPEAKS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE "INTRUDER" DNA

Jayelles! I am shocked that you don't know what a Rambot is!!! :sadie:

A robot is a mechanical/electronic piece of equipment that performs certain instructions which have been programmed by a humanoid. A Rambot is a human (we think), mindless piece of work, programmed to say certain words and phrases repetitively and, though able to think on its own from time to time through an implanted computer chip that communicates with its fellow Rambots, its wiring has been rearranged to substitute logic with illogic. By virtue of the fact that Bots have no consciences or brains, they are programmed to assimilate characteristics of one another, and the term, "garbage in, garbage out," fits them perfectly.

Examples of Rambots are: Lin Wood, Susan jameson Bennett, Lou Smit, Mary Keenan, Margoo and all her fellow Rambots at the swamp. Candy is another form of Bot, part Rambot, part Idiotbot.

The Rambot Margoo is one of the lower forms of Rambots. During installation of her parts, she was equipped with a motor mouth that does nothing but run constantly and say nothing of consequence. But, that pretty much describes them all. Rambots Summer and Ashley were produced purely for comedic entertainment. Rambots Wood and Bennett are a little more advanced - they've been programmed to lie a lot.

Of course, then we have the insufferable Rambots, mamebot and morganbot and horacemillsbot and cyclopsbot, oh wait, that's cheekysoddbot. They are examples of Malicious Liar Bots that have broken motormouth springs. Their handlers have been trying to reach them to replace some of their worn out parts and possibly to end their suffering, for they surely seem to be suffering from information overload.

So, there you have it. LiarBots and mindless idiotBots - all members of the Rambot family. Hope that answers your question.

:cool2:

 

It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Margoo has asked some questions. It's Reasoning 101 stuff, and you can't reason with a Rambot, but for the edification of our other, non-Rambot, clientele, and since Jambot definitely won't clear it up, here ya' go, Margoo.


Margoo
Member since 11-29-02
05-19-04, 06:15 AM (EST)

11. "RE: Where's the beef?"
In response to message #10

A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.
WHERE does it go too far?

It goes too far, Margoo, because it makes this statement of fact, which is most certainly not a proven fact: "...investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer..."

Unless the owner of that DNA is identified, which can never happen to a degree of certainty under present circumstances, no one can say with certainty that the DNA belongs to "the killer." They may say who the DNA does NOT belong to, but they cannot say it specifically identifies anyone, and there is no way to know where the DNA came from or when it was acquired by JBR - big problem for the RST. It is a complete misrepresentation to say it belongs to the killer. No one knows that for a fact.

At the Ramsey website:

On December 11th, 2003, the family was advised by the D.A.’s investigative team that the Denver Police Department DNA lab had successfully identified the 10th DNA marker from the blood samples found on the underwear of JonBenét.

TRUE statement.

Cellmark couldn't get the 10th DNA marker, but the DPD DNA lab could? Well, good for them, if it's true. "They" say it's true, so I'll accept that until I hear differently. It's mostly been the RST who's been peddling that bit of information. Yes, I know Keenan allegedly said something about it, but I consider Keenan and her staff in allegiance with the RST, as well.


Consequently, all of the state and federal DNA data systems now have the entire profile of the unknown deposit thanks to the identification of the 10th marker. The sample will eventually be exported to the Canadian and European Database as well. DNA samples from known felons and crime scene evidence are being added to the national database daily. There is a huge backlog of crime scene and known felon samples waiting to be entered into the database and unfortunately some states do not even participate in the national database system.

TRUE statements.

Sorry, Margoo, that is NOT a true statement at all. Here's the problem: "...all of the state and federal DNA data systems now have the entire profile of the unknown deposit thanks to the identification of the 10th marker..."

The state and federal DNA banks DO NOT HAVE A COMPLETE PROFILE of that DNA sample. They have the MINIMUM necessary for entry into the system, but a COMPLETE PROFILE consists of 13 markers, not 10. It is not only misleading to say it is a complete profile, it is an out and out lie.

Read it, Margoo - a complete profile consists of 13 markers, not 10 markers.

It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child.

This is total BS, frankly. Without a doubt? This is even more deceptive, misleading, all the other adjectives that apply. I will repeat what I said before: Unless the owner of that DNA is identified, which can never happen to a degree of certainty under present circumstances, no one can say with certainty that the DNA belongs to "the killer." They may say who the DNA does NOT belong to, but they cannot say it specifically identifies anyone, and there is no way to know where the DNA came from, when it was acquired by JBR. It is a complete misrepresentation to say it belongs to the killer. No one knows that for a fact. To further represent that it is "without doubt" is total fabrication.

There are lots of things that have been misrepresented and spun by the RST. This is one place where the facts can't be changed.

The DNA in CODIS (allegedly) is NOT a complete profile. Three of the required markers are missing, and the 10th marker, required to meet the bare minimum for entry into the database, is iffy, so I've heard.

No one can prove the DNA came from "the killer." That is misrepesentation number 2.

I realize Margoo won't get it. Hopefully, others reading here will.

 

Geesh Wy, I wish I'd swallowed my coffee before reading that post! Very funny

No, I'd never seen a definition of Rambot before - never even paid particular notice of the word until I read a post of Margoo's this morning:-

At least there aren't any real-live Mr & Mrs Rambots - voting public of Michigan - who are going to take offence at their name being used as an insult.

 

Rambot logic

On Brennan stating that:-

Margoo calls Brennan some childish names and questions how it goes too far. She quotes from the website in her effort to spin (Margoo's emboldening):-

She added that it was the words of Mary Keenan and Lou Smit which led the family to understand that the DNA belongs without doubt to the killer. Well, we know that Lou Smit thinks the DNA belongs to the killer because he has stated so based on the evidence, as he knew it up to his resignation in 1978. To the best of my knowledge, Mary Keenan has never commented on the DNA specifically, but if Margoo knows differently, I'm sure she will be happy to provide a quote.

In fact, we have no idea what the investigation team currently considers about the DNA - because they aren't talking!

The bottom line is - it's the Ramseys making the statement here - not the investigation team. That is why the statement is misleading. Margoo emboldening bits of it doesn't change that one iota.

 

and the bottom line is.................

...that the DNA could belong to some 4'6" grandma from the underwear factory in Thailand. It could also belong to the maid, the butler, or Col. Mustard, who was in the parlor with a lead pipe. With fractional, degraded DNA, and a bank which consists of only known offenders, any person who was previously "innocent" (as yet not involved with a crime which would necessitate their DNA sample being on file) would not have their DNA listed within CODIS. That's most of America on the exclusion list.

:laughup:

 

Actually, it would be a grandpa, not a grandma, since the DNA is alleged to be male. Doesn't matter, though. One sneeze in the packing department or sorting department would be enough to deposit DNA on those underwear.

Now you know why I wash everything washable before I wear it. I don't want no one's DNA in my unders that I don't want there. Savvy?

 

Charlie Brennan

Let's take a walk down Memory Lane, shall we?

Charlie Brennan was THE reporter who quoted various officials at the time of the murder that there were no footprints in the snow (for example) indicating no intruder could have come and gone through the house that night. I think he may have also quoted Durgin (sp?) that there was no "killer on the loose." The Ramseys were fit to be tied with this kind of reporting!

Brennan suddenly went pro-Ramsey, teaming up with Michael Tracey for the first crocumentary and started publishing stories about how the Ramseys were being railroaded.

He disappeared...no one saw or heard from him.

Just as suddenly, he reappeared, back on the beat, only this time he returned to his old style of writing (that is, the facts, no more crocumentary BS).

There was an article about him where he admitted that for a while, he'd been taken up with the belief that the Ramseys were being railroaded and he had joined forces with the RST to turn that spin around. Problem? The more he dug, the more he realized that the real spinners were the Ramseys, so he switched back to his former reporting style and guess what happened? He lost his job, he couldn't get work, and went through a really bad period where he, just like everyone else who'd been thrown under the bus or worked the case seeing no intruder, suffered the consequences of being "anti-Ramsey."

I think this story that opens this thread tells quite a bit about Charlie. IOW, he's been there and seen, and wasn't convinced. He's gotten back on track and I, for one, am certainly glad!

With that said, this story must really be ing off the Ramseys and their Rambots.

 

Lol

at "Rambots"

 

Wy

You know I'm a bit skeptical that this DNA has been decreed male--correct me if I'm wrong, but so far only Lin Wood has officially said that it's male. I am skeptical , to say the least.

I can't believe people on these forums aren't noticing that the Ramseys have sddenly stopped talking about the DNA under the fingernails that also was supposedly from "the killer"--you know, the DNA that supposedly matched the DNA in the undies?

It was all a lie. It DOESN'T match the panties DNA. So now everybody in the Ramsey camp wants to pretend it doesn't exist, just like the fake ransom note

 

BobC,

Good point there. I think the Ramseys will latch onto anything, and I mean anything that will divert that old spot light from shining on them to divert it from that shining. Not very well said but you get my drift.

It was so good talking to you from Boulder and it is great to see you posting here. How is PI school going? Keep it up. Dont' quit like I did.

 

Get thee in the skeptical line, behind me, Mister, because I don't believe one thing that comes out of Wood's or his secretary jameson's mouths.

I think, though, that ST also said the DNA was male. I may be misremembering.

The RST has tried so hard to change history in this case. Too bad for them they can't disregard the evidence found by the original investigators. It's not going to go away no matter what they do.

 

Margoo says:

Huh? More genomic information than just the 10 markers? And, I'll bet there's a lot more in the three markers that are missing.

Regarding collection and/or testing procedures being the reason for the DNA's less than pristine state, Margoo, Margoo, that DNA was in a blood spot that proved to be from JBR. If collection and testing procedures were the reason for the degraded DNA, why wasn't JBR's DNA also found in that "less than pristine state"? They were handled in the exact same way. The blood spot was remoistened and the DNA extracted. They didn't pick the alien DNA from the blood spot and test it separately - it appeared in the sample of JBR's blood that they were testing.

The more Margoo talks, the deeper she digs her hole.

 

Again

I thought she might have risen to this challange in true academic style. Sadly, Margoo's response to being challenged to provide a source for her statement that Mary Keenan thinks the DNA belongs to the killer, was to post some non-sensical gobbledygook.

Not the first time. She once made a post to me comprising entirely of little groups of letters - kind of reminiscent of "SBTC" in the ransom note. Pretty weird eh?

The word "Margobbledygoo(k)" springs to mind.

 

Heh, Jayelles, I saw the ghoogybiddy post that margoobot wrote and LMAO. I was thinking maybe she should be writing John Ramsey's speeches.

You know, Good morning, all you giddygigglygoos and middlinfriarclackers, and welcome to Charlepoopoo. This morninglerite I'd like to confikelurate to you relibegationing outsourcing jobbypoos.

Good job, margoo. I now annoint you chief little head in waiting. Pittleypoofdywriggles to you, too.

Ha!

 

ROFL! No kidding! That's just what it's like! Middlinfriarclackers and jobbypoos indeed. I have tears running down my cheeks now and I have a long drive ahead of me this afternoon. What with the Rambots and now the jobbypoos, you're on a roll girl!

 

I've been stifled far too long. I'm about due to cut loose.

 

Experts Dispute Ramsey Claims About DNA Evidence

Experts Dispute Ramsey Claims About DNA Evidence
DNA Source Not Necessarily Killer, Expert Says

POSTED: 9:00 am MDT May 19, 2004

DENVER -- Experts are disputing claims by John Ramsey's congressional campaign that investigators have the DNA of the person who murdered his daughter, JonBenet Ramsey.

Ramsey, who now resides in Charlevoix, Mich., with his wife Patsy and son Burke, announced May 11 that he was a Republican candidate for the Michigan State Legislature.

Ramsey's campaign Web site has a section called "Family Tragedy/Update" which makes the assertion that forensic experts have successfully identified the final DNA marker from a sample found in JonBenet's underwear and that the family has been advised the sample came her murderer.

That claim is disputed by the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

The scientist, who talked to the Rocky Mountain News, told them it is possible the sample came from the killer, but that there are other possibilities that explain how the sample got in the underwear.

"You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist told the News. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

The scientist asked that his name not be published, according to the newspaper.

A second forensics expert, who the newspaper said is close to the case, also agreed that the significance of the DNA sample is open to interpretation.

Atlanta attorney Lin Wood, who represented the Ramsey family since the murder, told the News that he disagreed.

"Anyone in a law enforcement investigation who is searching for an innocent explanation for foreign male DNA found mixed in the victim's blood on her underwear is either incompetent or prejudiced to the point of being unqualified to participate in a fair and objective investigation," he told the newspaper.

After the final genetic marker in the sample was identified, the genetic profile was entered into a national database maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. So far, there has been no match for it.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3322382/detail.html

 

Why is this 10th marker being called the "final" marker? If I understood WY's recent post, there are 3 more markers yet to be identified before it can be sourced. This 10th marker was only necessary to meet the FBI requirements to enter it into the CODIS database, not match it to anyone!

Based on that understanding, I'd like to know who advised the Ramsey family that the same came from JB's murderer...

But great article-whomever wrote it is my new best friend! :yes:

 

Hey Dejanu!!

I thought I'd go back and get the writers information because I thought I'd forgotten it, funny thing though, there isn't a writer (that I could find) maybe It's just me but I think whomever wrote this wanted to keep their identity out of it; good for them, the Ramsey's are slap happy with the lawsuits. The tabloids took another approach, they either were purchased by John and Patsy Ramsey OR they are only printing the Helgoth crap because they knew it would draw an interest and would deflect attention away from themselves; I think this is a pretty scandalous tactic and tend to believe the $$ is more of a factor.

 

Right back at ya, JC! Yeah, I don't blame journalists who want to continue covering this case in not publishing their names on articles. Even though the newspaper itself bears liability for any material it publishes, and is not legally obligated to disclose the name of any journalist who writes the material, from a legal standpoint it does provide some wiggle room under First Amendment protections.

Lin Wood's days are numbered..... :behind: